Military Equipment Sperging Thread - The Tiger II is a better tank than the M1 Abrams edition

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
It is okay to like something that is obvious not working.
Hell, you just know that there is at least one TOG II fanboy out there who loves it.
 
WelperHelper99 said:
It's greatest contribution was showing off the swept wing concept, which was known before, but never demonstrated at scale.
Click to expand...
It didn't develop enough thrust nor go fast enough to gain any aerodynamic benefit from the swept wing. The acute wing angle was incorporated solely to even out the center of gravity, which would have been too front-heavy with a straight wing and the 2 engines.
 
millais said:
It didn't develop enough thrust nor go fast enough to gain any aerodynamic benefit from the swept wing. The acute wing angle was incorporated solely to even out the center of gravity, which would have been too front-heavy with a straight wing and the 2 engines.
Click to expand...
That is true. Even the P-80 Shooting Star out paced it, a straight wing jet. Still, it was used in future research. The actual aircraft wasn't great. It's design features were however.
----
Also Sub Brief put out a Gerald R. Ford class carrier video
Really goes over why it's a monster, and hoe it's actually able to defend itself in a firefight. ESSM go WOOSH.
 
WelperHelper99 said:
Really goes over why it's a monster, and hoe it's actually able to defend itself in a firefight. ESSM go WOOSH.
Click to expand...
ESSM is a beast at midrange supersonic engagement but radars are also carrying a ton of weight here. All of the radar tech on the Nimitz-class ships predates AN/SPY-1, with SPY-6 upgrades not beginning until 2026. Until then the difference in radar performance between a Nimitz and a Ford is truly beyond comical.

Cooperative Engagement Capability is still probably the USN's best and coolest trick, but it is very nice to see that it isn't going to be all that stands between carriers and gristly death going forward.
 
VF-1S Valkyrie said:
ESSM is a beast at midrange supersonic engagement but radars are also carrying a ton of weight here. All of the radar tech on the Nimitz-class ships predates AN/SPY-1, with SPY-6 upgrades not beginning until 2026. Until then the differnece in radar performance between a Nimitz and a Ford is truly beyond comical.

Cooperative Engagement Capability is still probably the USN's best and coolest trick, but it is very nice to see that it isn't going to be all that stands between carriers and gristly death going forward.
Click to expand...
The radars are carrying a lot of shit for the defense of the ship. And don't forget RAM and Phalanx if they escape the ESSM. There are layers to the defense, layers upon layers. That isn't even counting the aircraft on board which could also intercept missiles and drones.
 
The thing that put the size of carriers in perspective for me was realizing that if one went down with all hands more people would die than on 9/11 by 1-2000.
 
millais said:
It didn't develop enough thrust nor go fast enough to gain any aerodynamic benefit from the swept wing. The acute wing angle was incorporated solely to even out the center of gravity, which would have been too front-heavy with a straight wing and the 2 engines.
Click to expand...
Except the critical mach number was higher than the P-80, certainly helped by the swept wing. All aircraft can go fast enough to reach aerodynamic limits in a dive, plenty of fantastic pilots died in testing and combat when pushing their aircraft to those limits, I'd certainly prefer my limits in a combat aircraft to be higher even if I lack the power to reach those in level flight. I don't want to be the designated thread wehraboo but the internet swing from dumbass boomers thinking all Nazi equipment was the greatest to the current zeitgeist of all Nazi stuff was rubbish is annoying.
The Me 262 was flawed, as every single early jet fighter was, but it was still excellent in a number of areas. Nothing looks great when faced against 10:1 odds on a good day, put the YP-80 in place of the 262 on those bomber interception missions and it would have probably performed even worse given the lacking armament and inferior critical mach (I know everyone loves the .50 cal, but there is a good reason they were thrown in the garbage after Korea).
WelperHelper99 said:
That is true. Even the P-80 Shooting Star out paced it, a straight wing jet. Still, it was used in future research. The actual aircraft wasn't great. It's design features were however.
Click to expand...
I was also reading that during post war testing the USAAF found that captured Me 262s were faster than the P-80 (couldn't find the actual source, but Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles calculated very similar results and he knows a lot more than me about aerodynamics), so not sure where the P-80 being faster claim comes from, unless that is in reference to the variants that saw combat in Korea which is obviously an unfair comparison given the time difference. The early YP-80 models were also quite underdeveloped, but unlike the Luftwaffe the USAAF could afford to keep their wacky new machines in testing rather than sending them into a desperate last stand.
barrow greeter said:
thinking about the butcher bird today
Click to expand...
I think the FW-190 is the only aircraft both wehraboos and anti-wehraboos agree on as being a fantastic design. Probably my favorite piston engined fighter of the war, along with perhaps the Brewster Buffalo and Hawker Tempest.
 
WelperHelper99 said:
The radars are carrying a lot of shit for the defense of the ship. And don't forget RAM and Phalanx if they escape the ESSM. There are layers to the defense, layers upon layers. That isn't even counting the aircraft on board which could also intercept missiles and drones.
Click to expand...
RAM is also an unsung stud, SeaRAM especially. IIRC it's pK against subsonics with terminal maneuvering is at or over 95%, and it can also do double duty against surface targets at a decent range. It's IR guided as well, so better suited than radar to pick out small UAVs and USVs, in some ways and some cases.

Those Ukrainian Sea Baby drones are very cool but I dunno how anyone ever thought they'd run at carriers with that type of weapon. Even if you get past the escort screens and air wing you're still fucked.
 
finally, a use of those hoverboard things that isn't looking like a tremendous homosexual
I guess they just come with a variety of good parts for a good price, because while I certainly expect to see improvised UGVs becoming more popular, I was expecting full custom ones rather than a pair of modified hoverboards with a mine strapped to them.
A good mix of types too; kamikaze, minelayer, logistics, even medevac. Wonder if we'll see something like the old Nazi Borgward demolition vehicles that can be recovered and reused for less cost after deploying a demolition charge, or if they'll just keep using kamikaze models and continue asking siberian zoomers for their hoverboards.
 
Hatewerfer said:
Dog shit in the pacific, godlike in finland, but mostly I just like it for the barrel-like looks. If your taste is so superior, name your favorite piston engine fighter of WW2.
Click to expand...
The Buffalo wasn't a bad plane, for its era. It got fucked over badly in the Pacific mostly due to doctrinal concerns.
 
Yugoslavia once stuck a 122mm gun on a Sherman. It wasn't a very good idea, and we ended up buying Soviet shit in the end, but at least it looks hilarious.

1000033995.webp


World of Tanks/War Thunder premium vehicle when?
 
Hatewerfer said:
If your taste is so superior, name your favorite piston engine fighter of WW2.
Click to expand...
No hate was meant I like the Brewster Buffalo as well it shows how quickly tech was advancing by how quickly it went from a hero to a goat. My favourite piston fighter of WW2 is probably the Hellcat because I'm a massive naval autist
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom